Quote from: picowatt on May 02, 2012, 05:40:26 PM
TK,

This "disconnect the FG black lead" thing will only work if the FG chassis is isolated (not touching or connected to) another piece of test equipment and that the AC ground is as well isolated.

Don't you think this may be asking/expecting a bit much from some?

PW

It's one possible explanation for her supreme confidence that she can demonstrate that no current flows from the "probe" to the "source" or however she puts it... meaning between the FG's output terminals. How could it, she might reason, if the black lead is simply unplugged?
She has made much of the fact that one of the scopes is not grounded back through the AC line cord, and yet it "confirms" or rather "agrees with" the other scope........ when all the probe grounds from both scopes are hooked up to the same point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbHo3CCJtaw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epxktl9PoF4

QuoteI should add this.  I am entirely satisfied that Harvey Gramm and Tinsel Koala? among others are all paid to deflect from this 'free energy' technology.  They are trained in psychology - NOT SCIENCE - and their mandate is to use any means possible to detract from either the work, the character - or BOTH - to continually frustrate this reach for energy abundance.  They are WELL PAID.  And they are VERY EFFECTIVE.  The also have liberal access to laboratories.  And TK was able to deflect from the work of ?? - can't remember the name as it happened before my advent to the forums - (it could be Mylow - somesuch?) where he was able to INSERT a wire that simply was not there.  I'll get back here when I've found out the man's name.  They are DANGEROUS.  And this is the real psyops program that is happening under our noses.  I am NOT paranoid. And frankly I'd prefer it if this were not the case.  We can all get comfort from the fact that Rossi is well able to deal with their nonsense.  The man's a genius.  And he's had his own bellyful of exposure to their agendas.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/12/216-background-resulting-in-that-prior.html

More Ains-lies. 

I am not paid a cent for this work and Ainslie knows it. Nobody gives me batteries, grants me workspace and student assistants, or loans me equipment for months at a time. Nobody even helps me make my videos. I get valuable advice and constructive criticism from the posters on this forum and that is all the assistance I get.

Psychology is indeed a science; more correctly, several distinct sciences are bundled under the generic appellation "psychology". Many psychologists know a lot more about research methods, experimental design, and statistical analyses than many physicists do. And when we begin to discuss formal models of cognitive processes like visual pattern recognition.... we are up against a hard science, indeed, involving lots of multidisciplinary knowledge.

Does it appear to anyone that I have "liberal access to laboratories"? I have occasional access to some test equipment and I have to make a 200 mile round trip for it to happen. Very liberal indeed... it costs me about 30 dollars in gasoline alone to make the drive.

Mylow... yes, it was Mylow, and I inserted no wires that were not there. Mylow admitted in a comment on my YT expose that I had found him out and guessed the method and that comment is probably still there today. The other analysts on this forum saw the fishing line in the videos Mylow published and at about the same time I "replicated" his performance using the same "wires" Mylow did. The insinuation of Ainslie that I "inserted a wire that simply was not there" is a lie.

Note the veiled threat again, the accusation that "we" are DANGEROUS, and the pathetic outcry denying paranoia.

Rossi a genius? I am the Pope.

Guys, the trick is to check if TK or any of them post my quotes over with a date reference.  If they don't it's because they're quoting me out of context and they need to.  That's the only way TK manages to keep up his spin.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2012, 03:54:29 PM
Post after post of the same nonsense, to try to cover up the real issues:

And with reference to this diagram...

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2012, 03:54:29 PM
Anslie cannot even draw a coherent schematic diagram. See image below.

That's probably on the money.  I can ONLY manage simple schematics - at best.  But that 'schematic' as he refers to it - is NOT a schematic.  It's 'taking liberties with conventional schematics' - as written.  I'll take the trouble to post this again.  It's important that you get your head around this.  I'll also highlight it when I get to my moderated thread - in about 2 weeks from now.  NOTA BENE.  The source leg of Q2 is not connected to the circuit's source rail (negative battery terminal as Poynty puts it).  This can be readily shown.  And I'll do so. Just bear this in mind and note this in the context of picowatt's denial of this fact.  I shall enjoy showing him that he is, again, 'erroring'.

This point is HIGHLY significant.  For reasons which I'll explain.  In due course.

Regards,
Rosemary

Sorry I missed this...

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2012, 03:54:29 PM
And she has two tripods and an HD video camera !!  Therefore TK is an alien.

Just ignore it.  It's spin.  I most CERTAINLY have two cameras one of which is HD.  Very proud of my latest acquisition. And I'll be glad to photograph it in due course.  But it will only be appropriate in my own thread.  Which makes TK what? 

Hey TK:

The second clip was pretty cool with the grounding example.  As PW stated, it's an art to manage your grounds.

I have a wish list item for an analog scope were both channels are completely isolated and powered by separate isolation transformers so you can put your probes anywhere.  I suppose that complicates matters when you need to drive the analog deflection amplifiers and you need some kind of voltage reference to between the channels and the amplifier to do that.  Perhaps an optical link between your isolated scope channels and your deflection amplifiers?  lol  An analog scope with a hidden optical-digital data pathway that is so high in bandwidth that it looks exactly like an analog scope.

Anyway, I want to focus on the first clip.  You showed how the 10.3-ohm resistor has roughly 170 mA of DC current going through it with a relatively low AC waveform superimposed on top of it.  That AC waveform was quite similar to he waveform observed across the CVR.  And you showed how the multimeter was in agreement showing about 170 mA of DC current flowing through the circuit.  This is quite conclusive proof that current is flowing right through the function generator, and it backs up what you demonstrated in your second clip.

I am assuming that your "negative terminal" of the "function generator equivalent" circuit is connected before the CVR.  i.e.; You have built the "corrected" circuit where the CVR shows all of the current passing though the circuit.

What I am trying to understand is this:  The waveform across the 10.3-ohm resistor shows that the current though the "function generator equivalent" and the source pins of the Q2 array are mostly DC with a smaller AC component.  However, when you look at the 0.2 ohm CVR, you see what appears to be nearly all AC.  Aren't the 10.3-ohm resistor and the CVR in the same loop?  Is it possible that it's related to the Q2 array gates and the assumption that there is AC power coupled through the gate capacitance?  Note that the presumed Q2 array AC power via the gate capacitance will tend to flow through the CVR more than the 10.3-ohm resistor because the CVR is a much lower impedance path than the 10.3-ohm resistor.

Perhaps I am missing something or can you explain it?

Thanks,

MileHigh

And guys another quick point on this post of TK's...

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2012, 04:06:26 PM
How would you design a test of this hypothesis? Suppose you DIDN'T know, just for a moment, or suppose you had to prove the claim to a skeptic with a million dollars in a suitcase just waiting to give it to you if you prove it.

What kind of test would you do, to show that there isn't, or is, current flowing through the FG?

Just bear in mind that I KNOW that current is flowing through the function generator.  How else could it apply a voltage at the MOSFET gate leg?  Therefore any tests to disprove this would be spurious - and redundant to our argument.  Which makes the balance of his post somewhat absurd.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2012, 04:06:26 PMWould you place a shunt in the positive "probe" lead and then look at the voltage across this shunt? And if it remained at zero, what would you conclude? And if it DID NOT remain at zero... what would you conclude? Is there some other test you could think of, like using a non-contact current probe at the FG hookup?  Or is it so impossible, that you don't even need to test the idea... sort of like the clerics that wouldn't look through Galileo's telescope at the moons of Jupiter and the "ears" of Saturn? What test would convince ME that you are right... what test would convince YOU that you are wrong? I personally would gladly accept the test that I suggest: use a scope channel to look at a shunt (current viewing resistor) in series with the FG output, at either end, black clip or red clip. Black would be better since that way you can still use the common ground. If it shows no current while your device is operating... then I'll happily acknowledge my error. If it DOES show current while your device is operating.... what will you do?

Which is precisely how he 'misdirects' you all.

Regards again
Rosemary